Final Draft

it's quite interesting; you do have some time to prepare concepts and ideas, but all of it usually happens within the time frame of one day (and a busy day filled with other things to do at that). [for viewers, it's almost entirely improvisational because they have less control on how it evolves (and also less incentive to prepare beforehand).] I really like this structure of the work; you have time to give it some meaningful thought, but not enough to let it escape the realm of instinctive responses. in other words, you give your response some weight while being spontaneous with it. this format seems to really suit my creative self quite nicely, as I have many ideas and concepts popping out of my head all the time, but like to mull over them and develop them in my head instead of forgetting about them to move onto some other ideas as soon as they appear. this format really stimulates me and gets me going, and lets me stay alive with the art; I usually find I get so tired and bored out of my mind if the project is droned out and just takes too long to execute when the idea itself is complete ('cause if the idea is complete in my head and I know exactly what it's going to be/ what it will look like in my head, I don't see why I should waste all that time just to have the idea manifest physically. Once it's already complete in my head, in my metaphysical realm, I lose interest in the concept; it's done, finished, solved, and dragging on with it is like catching a dead fish over and over again. I am not a producer; I am a creator. Once I 'create', wherever, however and whichever form that may happen to be, it's done. I mean, of course, producing something just for the sake of producing can be a meditative practice - not only in the arts but many other things too - and that has its merit and charm too, but what really really excites me is creating.); the execution time needs to be just as long as the idea is developing conceptually, not longer and not shorter. longer time breeds boredom, shorter time shallowness, repetition and weak concept.

but back to unpredictabliity and conceptual deadfish. we usually use (or at least I do) conceptual deadfish method for class assignments; we have a plan, an image, a method, and whatever else, which we hand in as a proposal, and then we execute it for the rest of the time with that proposal as the bible with which to produce. this method significantly reduces risk - if you know what it will be like, you can somehwhat estimate/ control how bad it will be -, or more importantly, it gives you a very strong illusion that it reduces risk. it's a method that feels safe. so safe it's almost boring, but when you are on a tight schedule and equally tight judging eye, the method almost makes too much sense.

unpredictability is a dangerous sounding element to incorporate into your work, and more and more so if more are on stake for your work. The thing is, it could go unpredictably bad. so we run to the safety zone and catch the dead fish all day long; we're so good at catching this fish we can even pretend to be taking risks while doing it.

but enough about dead fish. back to unpredictability. there are many ways you can incorporate unpredictability into your work. this exhibition in particular uses multiple creators and response format as its element of unpredictability; you get different perspectives on your input and you are to give input to someone else's creation. the format makes you very simply and elegantly move outside your conceptual frame and proceed and develop in different ways. (I believe this is also why musical improvisations happen in communal setting as well; you can very easily slip into predictable pattern improvising and developing alone because you have a distinct and habitual thought process that you are used to.)

about a week ago I was at a seminar on motivation, and it was said to me that you should ask 'what' questions instead of 'why' questions to get you moving and doing, i.e. what should I do to get out of this mess? instead of why/ how did I get into this mess? but I think in the arts it's important to ask why instead of what, especially when it comes to your practice. In my first year as a visual arts student, I knew I had a liking for interactive art, spontaneous/ improvisational art, and evolving art (I called it 'live art' then, meaning it lived through a certain time period), but back then I did not know why I liked these forms of art; and if I had just practiced what my inclination told me without giving it much thought, I might have still had only a vague understanding of where I was coming from/ how I viewed things (and my ideas would have lacked depth and sophistication). I agree that asking why all the time slows you down and bars you from acting, but I think it does make one more careful, thoughtful, and possibly more insightful, more intellectually sharp and articulate, and most importantly - helps one comprehend more. 

but then again, right now my time might have been better spent studying Japanese for my midterm, instead of asking to myself why I like the format of this exhibition so much. who knows.

SPREAD THE WORD TO ALL THOSE YOU KNOW